Lindsey Graham, the long-serving senator from South Carolina, passed away unexpectedly on July 11. His death marks the end of a long and often controversial political career that had a significant impact on American foreign policy and the Republican Party. Graham will likely be remembered as one of the strongest advocates of a hawkish U.S. foreign policy. Yet Graham's legacy extends beyond the foreign policy positions he held. His political career also offers an opportunity to better understand how influence actually works in Washington. He is often presented as an example of the power of lobbying in American politics. However, his career trajectory shows that a senator's influence largely depends on the power dynamics within the American political system.

U.S. Congress, personal influence

Organized interest groups play an important role in Congress. Through campaign donations, advocacy networks and long-term political relationships, many groups seek to shape legislation and influence policymakers. However, assuming that lobbying by itself dictates U.S. foreign policy oversimplifies how the American political system functions. Congress is undoubtedly open to outside influence, including from foreign actors and foreign policy interest groups. But Congress is not the only institution that makes foreign policy, nor can any lobby guarantee political outcomes simply by cultivating influential senators.

Foreign policy in the U.S. is ultimately shaped through the interaction between Congress and the presidency. The relative influence of each institution changes depending on the political environment. Although presidents possess significant constitutional authority in foreign affairs, their ability to use that authority often depends on their political standing and their relationship with Congress.

Presidents facing divided government or weak electoral mandates are generally more constrained by Congress. In contrast, presidents with strong electoral victories, unified party support and substantial political capital have considerably greater room to maneuver. While many executive actions remain subject to congressional oversight, the American system also provides presidents with considerable flexibility in foreign policy. How effectively they use that flexibility depends largely on the political capital they possess.

U.S. President Donald Trump's two presidencies illustrate this difference well. During his first term, Trump faced stronger resistance both from Congress and from parts of the Republican establishment. In his second term, however, he took office with a much stronger political position, allowing him greater freedom to pursue his foreign policy priorities with fewer domestic constraints.

This changing balance of power also affects the influence of individual senators. When Congress enjoys greater leverage over the White House, influential lawmakers can play a much larger role in agenda-setting and policy formation. When presidential authority is stronger, however, even highly connected senators have less room to shape outcomes independently.

Lindsey Graham fit the profile of an influential senator. Over the years, he built extensive relationships within Congress and became one of the Republican Party's outspoken voices on foreign policy. Although he was initially critical of Trump's presidential campaign and even declined to endorse him in the 2016 election, he gradually developed a close working relationship with Trump.

His political journey reflected this evolution. A close ally of Senator John McCain, Graham supported both of McCain's presidential campaigns and briefly sought the Republican presidential nomination himself in 2015 before ending his campaign due to limited support. He successfully transformed himself from a Trump skeptic into one of the president's closest congressional allies. In doing so, he came to be regarded as an important link between the Republican foreign policy establishment and Trump's inner circle.

A foreign policy hawk

Graham's positions on major international issues remained controversial. His open and staunch support for Israel was always a subject of debate. He consistently maintained close relations with pro-Israel lobby groups. He supported Israel's military operations and attempted to justify more aggressive Israeli attacks on Gaza. He himself described the Palestinians living in Gaza as "the most radicalized population" in the world.

Throughout his career, he also consistently supported a hard line against Iran, maintained a strong commitment to Israel, and defended continued U.S. military engagement abroad. His position was once again visible during the recent war with Iran. He strongly backed the operation while arguing that any future agreement with Tehran should not only prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but also fully protect both U.S. and Israeli interests. He also insisted that any nuclear agreement should be subject to congressional review.

Graham strongly supported U.S. military and financial assistance to Ukraine from the very beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion. In doing so, he diverged from much of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, where skepticism toward foreign aid became increasingly common. He repeatedly called for tougher sanctions on Russia and maintained that sustained support for Ukraine served America's long-term strategic interests.

On Syria, Graham consistently opposed withdrawing U.S. troops and remained supportive of the YPG, a position that frequently generated criticism in Türkiye. Following the political changes in Syria after the December 2024 revolution, he adopted a more balanced approach, expressing conditional support for the new government in Damascus while continuing to advocate for protecting the YPG's position.

Türkiye was another issue on which Graham often adopted a hard line in recent years. He supported both the CAATSA sanctions and Türkiye's removal from the F-35 program under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Until recently, he opposed proposals to lift those restrictions. However, in one of his latest public statements, he signaled that he was willing to discuss the issue further. At a time when the Trump administration appeared increasingly open to reviewing sanctions policy toward Türkiye, Graham's more flexible position suggested that Congress might not become a major obstacle should the administration move forward with lifting CAATSA sanctions after the required certification and congressional review process.

Ultimately, Lindsey Graham's career illustrates both the importance and the limits of individual political influence. He was, in many respects, the model establishment Republican: strongly pro-Israel, firmly anti-Iran, committed to supporting Ukraine, and generally skeptical of reducing America's global security commitments.

His death will undoubtedly matter for those who relied on his influence to shape U.S. policy. Yet it also reminds us of a broader lesson about American politics. Individuals matter, but only within the opportunities created by political institutions and the broader balance of power. Even the most influential senator cannot fundamentally reshape foreign policy unless the political environment allows that influence to translate into policy. Personal connections may open doors, but institutions, political incentives and presidential authority ultimately determine which doors remain open.